I guess the point of Michelle is that scientific knowledge is shaped by scientist and the way science works today is going to be more and more difficult to sustain. If you remove scientist the way the scientific knowledge will be shaped is going to be distorted and manipulated. Without the people doing science (all kind of scientific areas) the perception can be manipulated.

One of the big issues is that more and more governments are pushing scientist to do applicated science which is slowing down any kind of fundamental or deeper understanding or revolution in the thinking. Nowadays politics want to put have a return for money. Science needs to be "profitable" in the short term. This shift in mentalities is definitely shaping the direction is going.

Where do you feel the crisis could happen? Do you feel it would be methodological, or do you believe it could be a theory, like evolution, that breaks down barriers and lets us see more clearly?

I feel that sometime in the near future there might be a discovery theoretically that combines physics, biology, and cognitive neuroscience. As we try to crack the brain, and join physics with metaphysics, I believe, we will continue to chart undiscovered territory. I have a feeling this "discovery" might explain life, consciousness, and might even explain bigger pictures of the universe by pointing to the microcosm of life. Shapiro, R. Penrose, and D. Chalmers are but a few looking to connect the dots. However, nothing has struck gold.

Alas, this is an old endeavor. Many, such as Dr. Frankenstein, have looked for the answer to life and consciousness. I'm still awaiting a theory of consciousness that is more scientific and less theoretical. As we study the complexity of how chemically-like "stuff" give rise to life, and how the different faces of information manipulate life (consciousness?), i believe we may stumble upon why or what seems to be irreducibly complex. This stumbling block may even be the foundation for there to be evolution. Crack consciousness and a whole new world will open up.

I'm just a philosopher though. I merely try to make sense of what I hear from scientists. I'm more like a camel peaking his nose in the tent, trying to understand great human minds.

Stephen:

"Where do you feel the crisis could happen?"

I see the 'crisis' I mentioned pervading, to various degrees, all natural sciences. E.g. in physics, we need radically new (irreversible) conception of time and, as a consequence, a new concept of space; in biology, we need to put the emerging field evo-devo in the center of biology and redefine species, genus, family, etc. in light of the new (developmental) formative structures.

From a very general, data representation, perspective, I discuss the issue in my developing book http://www.cs.unb.ca/~goldfarb/BOOK.pdf .

To put it briefly---and it is my own intuition, of course---the abrupt break with the tradition should come as a result of the attempts to develop a new, non-numeric (structural), formal 'language' for data representation. If successful, such development should usher in a completely different than numeric, structural, view of objects in science. One can also call it the (new) 'informational' view. Such considerations were motivated by the desire to integrate mind, as naturally as possible, into our scientific view of the Universe. Not surprisingly, however, the 'natural' integration still leads to a very radical break with the tradition. (By "natural", I mean a uniform transition which is based on a single universal form of data representation.)

So I opted for the most radical---yet I feel the most natural---transition. One thing is clear, *in any form*, such transition cannot be achieved incremental, as has previously been the case.

However, I'd like to know whether my intuition is an 'aberration' or whether we share it, to some extent, with some other scientists.

Dear Michelle,

The phenomenon you mentioned is not really on a scale of a scientific 'crisis' I referred to, since it does not affect our basic *scientific* perceptions.

After second world war no great discoveries were made-- Now there is no crisis-Now the quality of science is at the low ebb

I guess the point of Michelle is that scientific knowledge is shaped by scientist and the way science works today is going to be more and more difficult to sustain. If you remove scientist the way the scientific knowledge will be shaped is going to be distorted and manipulated. Without the people doing science (all kind of scientific areas) the perception can be manipulated.

One of the big issues is that more and more governments are pushing scientist to do applicated science which is slowing down any kind of fundamental or deeper understanding or revolution in the thinking. Nowadays politics want to put have a return for money. Science needs to be "profitable" in the short term. This shift in mentalities is definitely shaping the direction is going.

Shared for some time the feeling of Lev and are partially in agreement with the comments of Philippe. I have the feeling that scientific thought have peaked a few decades ago. For years we have refined methods, developed sophisticated bioinformatics systems, but the feeling in my field. that of applied biology to neuroscience, is that we keep going in circles around long-standing problems, unable to make real progress both in a depth knowledge of the mechanisms involved in certain disease states, as well as those that govern the individual as a whole. Often what we have in front of us is too complex, too messy and I personally feel that instead it could all be a lot easier if only we could find the key. I think we have too many means an endless amount of technical resources available but we have not yet figured out how to use, because scientific thinking in many disciplines is stopped decades ago. The physics seems to be the only field in which something remarkable is taking place, a field in which the combination between cutting-edge methodologies and thought go hand in hand and produce advances in the scientific society.

Finally, Philippe is right, the science moves slowly, it can also stop for a while, you should not be in a hurry or you will lose sight of the objectives. Science takes time, resources and time.Because scientific thinking may also need to "rethink". It does not mean not being productive.

Yes, Philippe, the current social environment is, unfortunately, a *strong* contributing factor, especially now when we need all the moral strength to face the next scientific revolution. I agree completely. This mismatch between the present social environment and the unprecedented scientific task we face is the *great* tragedy of our time.

But should all of us be 'paralyzed' or 'neutralized' by that tragic situation? After all, at the end of our lives each of us *individually* will still have to answer to herself/himself: As a scientist, have I been completely honest with myself? So, do I want to die as a cynic justifying myself by the social environment? This is not the way how we can get to the "promised land". ;--)

Let me tell what feeling i had- really i want to achieive some thing in basic electro chemistry

many a time i got depressed yet i continue- All of us honest - however we get funds from government / industry who want us to "applied research" i used the money to get equipments- but i did basic research- dear Lev, be cheerful- one day you will achieve what you want to get

Dear Lev, my answer was regarding my feelings about the situation of science. I feel like you that one should individually look at himself and make a choice between what he should do and what is morally wrong. And I feel like you that humanity as a whole is at the edge of a scientific revolution. However, I also think that without a 'moral revolution' the scientific one can't succeed. By 'moral revolution' I mean that people should try to get wiser and more 'enlightened' in a way that each scientific advances will be part of bigger picture. In the last decades on the contrary the moral shifted towards individualism, greed and, in general, lazyness towards knowledge. Nowadays, people just want the knowledge that allow them to get a good job or get more money. Science is seen as a tool to get better working devices to provide general contentment (better weapons for military, better crops for agro-industry, better medicines for pharmateucical companies, better telecoms, ...etc...)

A good sign of that is the recent events in my own University where departments like Philosophy, Modern languages, Archeology and others where threatened to be closed for 'rentability' issues. The measures where largely impopular and were vehemently fought by staff and students. Cuts did occur at the end of the day. Obviously, in the economic environement a few reforms were necessary. But the solution provided was more an excuse to get rid of some part that were considered useless. The thing that worries me is more the mind set behing this and reflects something that I see around us and gets deeper and deeper.

People in general don't want to think anymore. Not because they can't but just they don't want.

So to conclude, unless there is a global 'moral revolution' I can't see a scientific one happening.

Philippe: "So to conclude, unless there is a global 'moral revolution' I can't see a scientific one happening."

As strange as it may seem, I believe that a more realistic scenario is the opposite one: we need something to point the way out. We need a new source of spirituality. Science contributed significantly to the present mess, and, it appears, that only the new source of spirituality suggested by science can possibly point the way out (what else can do that?) As Nietzsche famously put it, “God is dead”. But this is a different topic.

Hi Cristiano,

May I make just one comment on your post?

You might be surprised to hear that I do not belong to those people who believe that just some philosophical discussions and some stimulating schools for children will do the job. Of course, those are quite useful.

However, I believe that, right now, it is the private and public funding agencies who can change things more effectively. In particular, what is missing from the scientific table are periodic series of conferences devoted specifically to the analysis and especially criticism of progress in various fields. We are spending enormous money on science, but because the dominant economic system is heavily short term oriented we apply the same short term criteria to the progress in science.

So here is the paradox: we cannot cross the above threshold (see the original question) proceeding *incrementally*, yet our most important funding agencies are operating under this illusion. So the above conferences should clarify this situation and help direct at least some funds into the more radical (non-incremental) but promising projects.

Hi Lev. I would be interesting in knowing why funding agencies have that view and model of funding.

Is out there anyone that can comment further on this?

Also, I see a parallel here. They economic model and personal relationships, at the moment, seam also to be quite volatile and in short term. If something breaks its just replaced. It a quick turnover and high demand for quantity.

Any ideas on why this phenomena?

Lastly, ill leave here the link for the question I posed, which is similar to this one. Just in case someone wants to read the answers there: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Anyone_have_thoughts_about_the_current_state_of_research?cp=re72_x_p2&ch=reg&loginT=GGqQOnXS5Ex0wqadp3Cuyu0bkL8bXVpt3oQ384x_iR6tWl23PZ94Ng%2C%2C&pli=1

Pedro: "I would be interesting in knowing why funding agencies have that view and model of funding."

Unfortunately, funding agencies are, practically always, are not headed by visionaries but by average scientists or bureaucrats. Also unfortunately, the majority of radical ideas are generated by people who do no have the necessary qualification to come up with more productive ideas.

Of course, when (???) and if governments and private agencies will recognize the present unprecedented situation they may begin to act in the right direction. But it will not be easy, since the vast majority will resist such trends. Besides, it will not be easy to find the right committee members for evaluating the 'radical' proposals.

But independent of such difficulties, we need to bring in the relevant funding: it should involve only 1% - 3% of the total funds.

On the positive side, we have to realize that there are very, very few productive radical proposals, which means their funding will cost us very little.